Sweet Jesus man. No, just no. Your claims of being for facts and truth are hollow.
1. True
2. True
3. False, a very small sample size of town-wide opinion of those who took the time to write in, does not necessarily contradict the opinion of residents on one road. If all those who wrote in had lived on that road, you might have something, since the sample size would be a much larger percent of the population when dealing with just the road. But that’s not the case. Your conclusion cannot be made.
4. Again, no. Nothing about the claims of #2 show a lack of credibility until they’re proven false by residents of that street. #3 does not do that
5. False, their claims are of retaliatory spiteful gunfire on the private range, and death threats. No such claims of vandalism.
6. False. No evidence was provided for the death threats. The photo of the graffiti is in no way linked to the resident with the firing range. It’s “just” white supremesist graffiti on a neighbor’s property. No claims of vandalism were made.
7. False. How do you know this? There is no presented opposing side to Shank’s accusations in his op-Ed.
8. False, as your 5-8 are bunk.
9. True
10. False. This is unknown
3. I'm sorry, please explain the physics of how noise remains isolated to a single street, invalidating everyone else's opinion on the subject. Please provide math and diagrams and proof your work... This should be most interesting to the physics community.
4. I'll await your results from #3 as this point is based on the invalidation of the opinion of those who live on a different street. The physics of that claim has yet to be proven - making the point unsubstantiated by reality. You're cherry-picking the data points you want to believe and disregarding the others that do not suit your position.
5. I guess the pictures were just for fun and not documenting actual vandalism.
6. Riiiight.... I guess that graffiti just magically and coincidentally appeared in rural VT as a completely random act at a random time..
7. The op-ed wasn't my only data point. You should expand your horizon and ingest more data as well.
8. I can see why, if you cherry-pick the data, you can draw that conclusion.
10. It's not unknown. Accusations were made. If there was a denial, please point me to it and I'll gladly ingest it as a data point and consider it.
Let’s do a real facts and truth list:
1. Fact: It is lawful to shoot on your own property in VT
2. Fact: VT has laws about when noises are permitted
3. Fact: VT has a law about how noise complains of shooting ranges are to be addressed
4. Presumption: The shooting residents are shooting in accordance with the VT noise law, during daylight hours. Shank even said “all hours of the day”
5. Claim: Shank and Breyer tried to talk with their neighbors reasonably
6. Fact: Shank and Breyer have publicly written anti-gun articles for online publications
7. Fact: Shank used his local government position and power to push through a noise ordnance in an attempt to win a private dispute with his neighbor
8. Accusation: There was retaliatory spite gunfire after Shank tried to institute a town noise ordnance
9. Claim: Pete Werner conducted a 35 person survey of High Pond Road residents (where the noise complaints originated) and only one respondent wanted the noise ordnance
10. Fact: 21 letters were sent to the select board about the ordnance
11. Fact: 12 in favor, 9 opposed
12. Fact: Brandon VT has a population of ~4,000.
13. Fact: Only 0.5% of the population sent letters in
14. Fact: Select Boards in VT can vote on town ordnances
15. Fact: The Select Board voted by super majority that state wide noise laws were enough and no further ordnance was necessary
16. Accusation: Shank claims his shooting neighbors are white supremacists in a published op-Ed
17. Fact: Shank provided no such evidence to his shooting neighbor being a white supremacist
18. Presumption: Shank committed libel
#1. Really... So it's cool to set up a range on a 9000 sq/ft property in Burlington? Yea, didn't think so. Don't use blanket statements. Because you're wrong.
#2. Sure, I would be surprised if every state didn't.
#3. Yep, and if the farmers were there before the range,
or if activity increased, as vindictive shooting would do, then they have a LEGIT complaint under the law. You seem to ignore that part of the law... Why? Is it because it doesn't suit your argument?
#4. An incorrect assumption on your part... Increased activity is not in accordance with the law.
#5. we agree
#6. So voicing an opinion you disagree with automatically makes them liars or guilty of something? That kind of logic is one small step away from assuming someone is guilty just because they're black. That's pretty shameful profiling bro.
#7. She used the position to advocate for an ordinance that was supported by the majority of validated feedback they received from residents. Given, she had skin in the game. But she was executing on the will of the majority. That's not out of line for the role.
#8. I don't think this is an accusation.
#9. I don't think this is a claim. A survey is done. The results are not trustworthy because of the biases of the person taking it and the lack of validation.
# 10 and 11. A majority is a majority. The percentage of the population is irrelevant. What matters is the vote count.
# 12. okay. not sure why that's relevant as this point wasn;t even in the discussion.
# 13. Not surprising considering the issue is isolated to a small corner of the town.
#14. Obviously, that's what they did. But an issue like this should have been on a ballot, and it may yet come to that.
#15. I'm not sure a 2 vote margin counts as a super majority, but okay. Whatever you want to call it bro.
#16. Where did he do that? Please quote the exact sentence where he said "Person A is a white supremacist". I see he levels accusations at the state police and local governments. But never at an individual. You're just factually wrong. Did you even read the article?
#17. is moot as he didn't do what you accuse him of in 16.
#18. is moot as he didn't do what you accuse him of in 16.